User talk:Lakenheath72/archive
Some things Regarding your recent work, there are some things you are doing that need to be corrected: *First and foremost, information that has been retconed is not to be removed from pages, but placed in a background note, see MA:CANON and MA:RESOURCE. *Second, stop assuming names on dedication plaques are Human just because the production person they are named after is. Only 22nd century Starfleet personal can be assumed to be Human. *Third, pages that contain information that only comes from an alternate timeline use not , and the information doesn't need to italicized. *Fourth, even when information should be italicized, the citation is not in-universe and should not be italicized as well. Otherwise, keep up the good work. :) - (on an unsecure connection) 16:10, December 31, 2014 (UTC) in v. of Replacing "in" with "of" in the opening sentence for 22nd century personel is inproper syntax. They aren't from the 22nd century as a point of origin, as in "Jesus of Nazareth", they were seen in 22nd century. Please stop changing this. - User47 (talk) 06:38, January 5, 2015 (UTC) Transcripts Transcripts of text seen in an image belong on the rather than article talk pages. See File:Type 7 shuttlecraft LCARS.jpg, File:Expeditions from Sol System, 2123–2190 remastered.jpg, and (the most relevant based on your recent work) File:Starfleet memorandum, page 1.png for examples on how this is done. - User47 (talk) 16:33, January 16, 2015 (UTC) My two cents Hi, would you mind if I give a few thought regarding the Earth starfleet agencies articles you've recently created? *First, it would be usefull if these could be added to the list of Starfleet subdivisions at Starfleet. There's also a template, Branches of Starfleet, that is highly relevant. I think these new divisions should both be added to the template, and the template to the new pages. *Secondly, and this is more subjective, but you refer to all these divisions as "agencies". I feel agency implies a very high degree of independence, an organisation on its own, so it isn't the first word I would think of for a subdivision of starfleet. Were they, or one of them, identified as agencies on the plaque? If not, and again this is very subjective and it's up to you, but if not maybe a vague noncommittal term like for example "group within Starfleet" or something may be better. (feel free to think up something better) Iirc all this is inspired by NASA specialties that I'm guessing NASA wouldn't describe as agencies within it's organisation. Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in your work, it's just a few thoughts I had. Oh and also in a completely unrelated matter, I've posted a question on an article you've created, here. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:38, January 24, 2015 (UTC) :What is the reason for the series of edits you have made today? 31dot (talk) 23:03, January 24, 2015 (UTC) ::Can you be more specific? If you are referring to me changing the category from Humans to Individuals and dropping references to them being Human, it is because I have been advised by Archduk3 that, Second, stop assuming names on dedication plaques are Human just because the production person they are named after is. Only 22nd century Starfleet personal can be assumed to be Human.Lakenheath72 (talk) 08:03, January 25, 2015 (UTC) :That's fine, I just wasn't sure why.31dot (talk) 11:58, January 25, 2015 (UTC) Civilian articles Why are you creating these civilian articles? Starfleet personnel can travel on Federations NAR-registered commercial transports. There is no reason to assume that there are two individuals with the same name in most of those cases. --Pseudohuman (talk) 23:34, January 27, 2015 (UTC) :I don't know if they are Starfleet personnel. If I do what I think you are saying should be done, then I am speculating. As for two individuals with the same name, there is no reason to think that the Star Trek universe is immune to this cultural idiosyncrasy. Civilian appellation is a compromise between what is known and what is not known.Lakenheath72 (talk) 15:12, January 28, 2015 (UTC) ::Using the name of the ship to disambiguate might be a more neutral solution. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:52, January 30, 2015 (UTC) The Cage Map Stop. - User47 (talk) 03:36, January 30, 2015 (UTC) This wasn't a suggestion, you are circumventing the deletion policy by adding material previously "deleted." The consensus must be changed first. Also, you've going to have to explain where the information you've added to Osama Bin Laden was in the episode, because if it's not it shouldn't have been added. - 06:44, February 7, 2015 (UTC) "would" construct Please avoid its use. "Bob would marry Clare" is poor grammatical use and should be "Bob married Clare". -- sulfur (talk) 22:33, January 31, 2015 (UTC) TXX-R Just wanted to make sure you're only using this on information that comes from a remastered version of an episode, as opposed to information that is present in both versions, in which case the standard citation template should be the one used. Not that I've noticed anything really, I'm just not sure if that bit of usage instruction has been written down yet. - 03:50, February 3, 2015 (UTC) Block For your last round of name calling, and general disruptive posts, I have blocked you for 72 hours; further name calling will result in longer blocks. --31dot (talk) 02:24, February 9, 2015 (UTC) Summary field and "show preview" Hey. When editing an article please fill in the "summary field". This makes it a lot easier to see why an edit was done, especially when you're removing large portions of an article. You can also use the show preview button to see how the article looks like after you made an edit. This prevents from editing an article several times in a short time just for "cosmetic typos". Thanks. Tom (talk) 23:33, February 12, 2015 (UTC) :Thanks for noticing this post. Just to make sure: The summary field is more than adequate like you did it here. You don't need to put these long "summary of changes" on the talk page. Tom (talk) 08:28, February 13, 2015 (UTC) ::Also I think it's a bit misguided in that anyone who can use the history tab can see all the changes in more detail then an edit summary might provide; there's less of a need to construct a complete list of changes then there is a need to explain why you feel those changes have to be made. And even in the detailed talk page summary's, that was often explained but just as often not, or not clearly. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:55, February 13, 2015 (UTC) Italy Is it perchance possible you've made an error in this edit? -- Capricorn (talk) 12:35, February 15, 2015 (UTC) Also, regarding your edit to Laura Danly: It's great that you've established that the real Dandly was definetly the source of the name, but could you please add your source for that information too? -- Capricorn (talk) 01:23, February 23, 2015 (UTC) :Well, do. Thanks for the tip. Lakenheath72 (talk) 06:14, February 23, 2015 (UTC) Continents . - 19:24, February 28, 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia links Please note that the templates and are not the same, and are used for different purposes. The template should be used to make in-line (within the body of an article) links, and only in real-world articles, never in in-universe ones. It also should not be used in the External links section of an article. The template is the one that should be used for Wikipedia links in the External links section, and, for the most part, that's the only place it's used. Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 16:41, March 9, 2015 (UTC) :In the same vein, use if there is one to the external site you are linking to. Also, external links are always the last section. - 01:10, March 10, 2015 (UTC) Disambiguations Please note that when adding your text to articles, you should double-check your links to make sure they go to the same places. For example, "March (month)" is the link for the month of March. Any reference to the original series USS Enterprise should be to "USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)". Please be cognisant of these things when adding links to articles. -- sulfur (talk) 17:57, March 18, 2015 (UTC) :You've continued to ignore this and continued to add links to incorrect pages to your articles. Please take the time to put in the correct links to start so that people do not have to keep cleaning up after you. -- sulfur (talk) 12:48, March 20, 2015 (UTC) Moving articles When moving/renaming an article please make sure to fix the incoming links. You can also read . Thanks. Tom (talk) 20:36, March 26, 2015 (UTC) Archanis notes Why did you remove the notes at Archanis? They seemed perfectly ok to me. It would be very helpful if you could put some kind of explanation in the summary field if you remove stuff, and in the case of background notes paste them on the talk page. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:04, March 27, 2015 (UTC) Ok, I think I figured it out, it's relevant to the sector, not the star. This is why filling in summary fields is so useful though, I might have saved ten minutes of my life ;) -- Capricorn (talk) 19:18, March 27, 2015 (UTC) I forgot to say sorry, for posting here without thinking about it longer. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:10, March 27, 2015 (UTC) Edit Summaries Since you're making such a large number of edits all the time, please take the time to fill in the edit summary when doing so. Note changes and why (in short form). It helps future editors see what's been done and why it has been done. -- sulfur (talk) 00:31, March 30, 2015 (UTC) :If you believe that my thinking travels down poorly thought paths, which implies that I have underdeveloped reasoning skills, what use would it be for me to leave a summary? In line with your belief, that summary would be written incoherently and rambling. How would that be of use to future "editors"?Lakenheath72 (talk) 05:54, March 30, 2015 (UTC) If you put clear comments as to what is the basis of reasoning, that helps people quickly scan changes to see if those reasons are logical or not to them. If not, they can ask about them. With no attempt on your part to even help others understand your reasoning, then you're making life more difficult for everyone, yourself included, as people will constantly question the paths you take. -- sulfur (talk) 12:29, March 30, 2015 (UTC) Citizen No one is a citizen of "Earth" or "Vulcan", since those are planets, not the governments based on them. Unless this information was explicitly stated somewhere, stop adding it, and remove it from the pages you have added it to, or all your edits will be summarily reverted. - 19:57, March 30, 2015 (UTC) :In response to your comment about citizenship, :* Citizens of Cardassia :** Damar, "The Dogs of War" :* Citizens of Earth :** Archer, "Similitude" http://www.chakoteya.net/Enterprise/62.htm :* Earth citizen :** Data, "Encounter at Farpoint" :* Vulcan citizen :** Sakonna, "The Maquis, Part I" :* Citizens of Minos :** Data, "The Arsenal of Freedom" :* Citizens of Rivos Five :*** Kurros, "Think Tank" http://www.chakoteya.net/Voyager/519.htm :* Bajoran citizen :*** Kira, "Favor the Bold" http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/529.htm :In the universe of Star Trek, there are planet-states. A person can be a citizen of a planet-state.Lakenheath72 (talk) 18:16, March 31, 2015 (UTC) Earth is not a state, United Earth is. Cardassia is not a state, the Cardassian Union is. is not a state, the Confederacy of Surak/Vulcan High Council/Vulcan High Command is, depending on which one it's suppose to be. Just because the colloquial term is to use the planet's name, that doesn't change the formal facts, and excepting Cardassians, all of those people are citizens of the United Federation of Planets, one would assume. And since we are assuming, Spock should be a citizen of both United Earth and the Confederacy of Surak based on his parents, and if Tuvok was born on Luna, so would he, but we don't know any of that for sure, since all of that is assuming citizenship works like it does in America, excepting American Samoa, at least. Stating that also raises a bunch of questions: Is Luna part of United Earth?; Is the Vulcanis Lunar colony on Luna?; What is the name of the Vulcan government?; How does citizenship work for Federation member states?; Did it work the same way in 22nd century as it does in 24th century, or is there a difference there? These are all questions that don't have answers, and articles should not be written to in a manner that would require answers for those questions. Despite this, you, without so much as an edit summary, decided to place that information in sentence one, where uncertainty should not be, and then use links, like we're absolutely sure this is correct and not just how the article is worded. Those edits aren't helpful, they're destructive, and it has everything to due with the connotations attached to the word citizen, and using a link for the planet. MA is suppose to be, by design, vague on anything not directly stated. Keep it that way. That said, if you want to create a citizen article, go ahead. Just don't assume that everyone with pointed ears in a Starfleet uniform is a "Vulcan citizen". - 22:16, March 31, 2015 (UTC) System names Typically a planet's name in the form of "Alpha Beta II" indicates that the name of the star and star system is "Alpha Beta"(as "Alpha Beta II" would mean the second planet in the Alpha Beta system) unless some other name is given for the system. I would suggest changing those edits back. I would further add that before you go and make some mass change to many articles that you at least post somewhere what your intentions are and rationale for doing so, the best place being Ten Forward or at a minimum the talk page of the first article you make an edit to. 31dot (talk) 13:51, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :Those edits seem perfectly fine to me. The new versions of the texts read as well as the old one, and no real information is lost because the systems were indeed not named. In fact, the new wording more correctly reflects our knowledge. Though of course communicating one's intentions remains a good idea no matter what. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:35, March 31, 2015 (UTC) The systems not being named specifically means that they don't get articles (an issue which we've dealt with before) but that doesn't change how planet names indicate the name of the system. 31dot (talk) 16:37, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :Where is that written? In the several discussions I remember about not having articles on the systems it was as much about not making assumptions about the name as anything else. This one is particularly confusing upon review today: in a discussion about articles created by Throwback you yourself argue that you can't be sure about a system name if it isn't mentioned, twice, and in direct response Throwback basically vowed to use the caution Lakenheath is using now. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:24, March 31, 2015 (UTC) It is my understanding that this person is Throwback, which might be why they are doing that. Maybe you are right, but it would have been nice to have this discussion first. 31dot (talk) 17:35, March 31, 2015 (UTC) ::I don't know what quite to say. I see things differently, because of my educational background. I am largely self-taught. I read history magazines, which makes me open to connections. I watch a VAD documentary on a Doctor Who DVD, where they talk about "web of associations", which is how our minds associate something with something else. I see something in an episode and I connect it to an event in my real life. This is an aspect studied in child psychology and cognitive theory. I look at episodes in the context of the times they were made, and attempt to understand them from the perspective of the time period in which they were written. When I look at them as a 21st century man, I am missing some of the context. The greater the distance in time from the period in which a piece of art was made - the more we lose the context of the art. This is what has happen with Huckleberry Finn. I was reading an article by a historian who wrote about the context of the novel, about how much of the context we have lost, because we don't live in the 1880s and aren't exposed to the culture of that time. I have heard the quote that says the past is a foreign land, they do things differently there. ::I come to this site to stimulate my mind. I am isolated as I am an Aspie. (This is a word i have been exposed to lately by reading the words of fellow Asperger Syndrome people.) If I don't stimulate my mind, my mind can literally dissolve, by becoming smaller. This is proven in studies of people who have suffered from isolation. However, I find it difficult to communicate and I don't understand the social conventions, which means I am constantly misinterrupting what is said. ::I don't compartmentalize. However, I feel that on this site, that data is compartmentalize. That there is no connections between facts. This is contrary to everything I have learned and I am learning. I got into a heated discussion with Pseudohuman about the location of Romulus. I gave a copy of the discussion to my psychologist. He could understand my thinking, and he was visibly disturbed by what Pseudohuman had written. Pseudohuman wasn't listening to me. Listening is a very hard skill to do. I work on it each week with my psychologist. My listening, and social, skills are improving slowly. Something that people are learning about those who are isolated is that they will adopt to a situation to a point. They won't adopt fully. It's like a man who lost an arm, who learned to work with one arm only, being presented with a prosthetic arm. This arm will not be comfortable to that man, and he will stay with what he feels is comfortable. ::I was adopting to the idea that we include only canon facts. Canon facts are those things which are explictly mentioned in an episode. We don't speculate. Speculation I have learned from reading an article is where a person takes a fact and extrapolates a fact that is assumed. For instance, if I see a Qo'noS system, I might assume that the star was Qo'noS. This is discouraged and condemn on this site. ::On another note, I feel constantly assailed because I come up facts that others think I made up. Sulphur thinks I made up the web of associations, and Archduk3 wrote to me that a person can't be a citizen of a planet. I have seen references to Earth citizens ("Encounter at Farpoint"), Vulcan citizens ("The Maquis, Part I"), Bajoran citizens ("The Homecoming"), Citizens of Cardassia ("The Dogs of War"), Romulan citizens ("In the Pale Moonlight"), and a Human in "Demons" believed that aliens continue to come to Earth, that Humans will become second-class citizens on their world. Why don't they check their facts before they make personal attacks on me? A personal attack for me is when someone uses the word "you" in a sentence, and never uses the "I".Lakenheath72 (talk) 17:54, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :::Not to put words into Archduk3's mouth, but I assume he's referring to the primary definition of citizen: "a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)". In that context, he's correct; a planet is not a state or nation (even if there's only one state or nation on the planet). But, there are other definitions of citizen: 2. an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges or franchises; 3. an inhabitant, or denizen: "The deer is a citizen of our woods"; 4. a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc. In the context of the third, less strict definition, someone *could* be a citizen of a planet. It depends on how the word is used, and if we want to use it in a consistent manner. I would vote to use citizen in a more strict sense, as in the primary definition, and use another word for the other contexts, such as "resident" or some such. Just my opinion, of course. And just because it was used one or more times in an episode in a less restrictive context doesn't mean we need to continue to use it that way; many people use words incorrectly or in an incorrect context in casual speech, but that doesn't mean the same usage is acceptable in, say, formal writing or a scholarly article. Again, context. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:26, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :Lakenheath, You seem to have accidentally deleted a comment by me. Not that it was too important ;). Anyway, I don't think Sulfur intended to say you made up the web of associations, merely that this isn't the right place to employ such techniques. You're missing the point by talking about your different way of approaching information : there's nothing inherently wrong with analysis and speculation or even outright making up stuff, but there's people who the that, and there's people who just document, who's job it is strictly to create the most correct and bias-free base for others to build upon. Our mission is absolutely the latter, and if you want to make analyses too maybe you ought to start a blog or something. You can indulge your views as much as you want, and what you write might even be valuable, but Memory Alpha just isn't the correct place for that particular activity. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:49, March 31, 2015 (UTC) :Also not every sentence with a "you" but no "I" in it is an attack, if you assume that then you're going to continue to feel constantly assailed. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:49, March 31, 2015 (UTC) ::The mission of this site is that you and I are playing the role of historical archivists at Memory Alpha. Like any person who is asked to take on a role, I do research into what it means to be such a person. A person who is an archivist earns a degree in history or library science. So You Want to Be an Archivist How does an historian look at facts? This is from the Romulus page. It comes from the web page Evidence Explained. ::*''As historical researchers, we might draw the following distinctions between speculation, hypothesis, interpretation, and proof:'' ::* ''Speculation is typically presented as an end-point to a disappointing research process, at which point the researcher has run out of ideas. Often, its presentation is prefaced by an assertion such as, “No evidence exists to prove this, but … .” Typically, the assertion will carry no documentation or, as a smoke screen, will cite material that—when examined—does not support the assertion at all.'' ::*''Hypotheses represent an interim state—one in which we recognize that our research and analyses are still seriously incomplete. We accept our hypotheses only as possibilities to be further tested and soundly proved before we can validly assert an opinion.'' ::*''Interpretation is an impermanent conclusion we reach after we feel we have adequately applied all the building blocks of proof. The strength of our interpretation will depend heavily upon the investment we have made in our study of context. We consider our interpretation to be impermanent because we recognize that the discovery of new evidence or the application of new insights or other research methodology might require altering that interpretation.'' ::*''Proof is the body of evidence and reasoning that we offer to support our interpretation. The quality of the work that creates this body of evidence usually determines the sustainability of our conclusion.'' https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-16-speculation-hypothesis-interpretation-proof ::On the same website, ::* analysis is defined as, the process of examining evidence. For students of history, this typically involves (a) studying individual pieces of data for inherent clues, strengths, and weaknesses; (b) correlating details from different sources in search of patterns; and © determining whether the whole body of evidence amounts to more than the sum of the individual parts. ::* speculation is defined as, an opinion unsupported by evidence. https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/basic-vocabulary-historical-research ::Furthermore, the website states, ::* Jack Webb, the famed Dragnet detective, consistently called for “Just the facts, Ma’am, just the facts.” That stance, a wise one for detectives, has its counterpart among historical researchers who recognize the difference between documented “facts,” speculation, and interpretation. ::* Facts, viewed in isolation, do not tell a reliable story. Webb did seek unembellished facts, but he then correlated and interpreted them. As historians, we need to seek those unembellished facts also, using original and unadulterated records to every extent possible. Like Webb, we need to identify, correlate, and analyze all the evidence in order to reliably understand it. We need to pose hypotheses and test them in every conceivable way, attempting to disprove the theories we form. ::When our hypotheses withstand all plausible tests, with no contrary evidence left unrebutted, we assemble our proof. At that point, it is indeed our job to put our evidence into a meaningful context that we express as an interpretation of the event or situation. Nowhere in this process, however, is there room for mere speculation. https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/facts-vs-speculation-vs-interpretation ::I would point to the discussions about "Moses" and "USS Intrepid" where on this website people have looked at facts in isolation. By the standards of the above, the website is failing at its mission. Some of the people here believe that there is an association between analysis and speculation and that there is no place for analysis. I am using the tools that are used by professional historians and I am told that I am in the wrong. Some archivists start off as professional historians. ::I was researching context on the same page when I came upon this page. ::*''A recent discussion of proof arguments triggered a common question: Why can’t we just ‘let the documents do the talking’?'' ::*''Unfortunately, documents don’t talk. They may lie, but they do not talk and they cannot speak for themselves.'' ::*''Most historical documents are inanimate objects. They can’t coordinate themselves to eliminate conflicts. They don’t correlate their own assertions. They don’t challenge each other’s ‘statements of fact’—or their lies. Many are written in a foreign language called Yesteryear and need a skilled translator. Many others present words in ways that were confusing at the time they were created and still need sorting out. Documents, individually, are puzzles, riddles, and enigmas. As a body, they are silent witnesses until we tease the evidence from them.'' ::*''A proof argument is the mechanism that gives documents a voice. That mechanism requires researchers—not paper collectors, not preservationists, but researchers—to make the case. They need us to analyze their wording, correlate their details, resolve the conflicts between them, and present their evidence in a fashion that the world finds credible. In the end, it is that action on our part that makes us researchers, not collectors or preservationists.'' https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/proof-argument-why-bother ::We view these episodes and films as "historical documents". ::When I edit the planet articles, I keep the information to what is stated in the documents. In every case, where a planet is alpha x, then the system is alpha x. This has never been stated in canon. It is an assumption that people make. From the above website, assumption is defined as, a typically premature conclusion unsupported by evidence. There are examples where the planet name is different from the system name. Unless it is stated in the canon, then we don't know the system's name. I correct mistakes that have crept in over time. (I make mistakes, like the debacle over citizenship. I owe up to them. I misread the context - okay, no biggie.) ::On "I"-statements, the University of Colorado states, ::*''I-messages or I-statements are a way of communicating about a problem to another person without accusing them of being the cause of the problem. Often, when someone has a problem with another person, they tell them so by using a "you-statement," for example, "you didn't finish the financial report on time!" While that statement may be true, by phrasing it that way, the listener is likely to get defensive, and begin to argue. For instance, they might reply, "I couldn't because the deadline was unreasonable!" or "You are always pestering me. I'd get more done if you'd just leave me alone!"'' ::*''Another approach to the same problem is using an "I-message." For example, the worker could say, "I really am getting backed up on my work since I don't have the financial report yet." The co-worker's response to this statement is likely to be more conciliatory. For example, she might respond, "I know. I'm sorry. I'll finish it up today and try harder to meet my deadlines. I had a lot of things piling up at once this week, but I'll get it to you as quickly as I can." While this doesn't completely solve the problem, it retains the good working relationship between the two people, and is more likely to generate more cooperative interactions in the future than the accusatory, "you message" approach.'' http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/istate.htm ::There has been research on this topic. The research reveals, ::A study in Hong Kong of children's reactions to messages from their mothers found that children are most receptive to I-messages that reveal distress, and most antagonistic towards critical you-messages. A study with university students as subjects did not find differences in emotional reactions to I-messages and you-messages for negative emotions, but did find differences in reactions for positive emotions. ::A study of self-reported emotional reactions to I-statements and you-statements by adolescents found that accusatory you-statements evoked greater anger and a greater inclination for antagonistic response than assertive I-statements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message ::So, no, what I am experiencing when people here use the "You"-statement is not atypical.Lakenheath72 (talk) 01:29, April 1, 2015 (UTC) The above is very long to process, but I kinda agree with what Capricorn stated above. 31dot (talk) 09:33, April 1, 2015 (UTC) :We are at this point sooo far removed from what this topic should be about - something that keeps happening when "you" join a discussion and is in itself a very bad thing. But here is the reason why I see no choice but to keep responding; in the last months I've seen you asserting a few times on discussion pages here and there that MA's primary mission is to roleplay about being historians from the future. I didn't insert myself in those discussions because I didn't want to derail them further, but every time that statement went unchallenged you grew more and more assertive that what was at first an uncertain hypothesis to try to explain things you were told that you had trouble understanding, was in fact an iron law. So now I can't help but comment because I think that's the root cause of what is going on with you today. :Let's start at the beginning; not only are we not professional archivists (but like any real-life archivist workspace we have our own practices tailored to our specific needs and potentially quite different from what the textbooks say) - But, and this is important : our mission is not to roleplay anything, our mission is to "create the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek", and furthermore do it according a bunch of other guidelines that have been laid down in an attempt to better achieve that in practice. I'm going to repeat that a few times : Our mission is not to roleplay anything. our mission is not to roleplay anything. our mission is not to roleplay anything. I remember exactly where you've got that idea from though; MA:POV. But read carefully; nowhere does it say that you have to pretend to be a future archivist. All it says is that the pov of the text ones produce should look consistent with text produced by one. :That's because that statement is not intended to say anything about uor mission, it is merely trying to help people understand our point of view, i.e. it helps the kind of people that are confused we write about Earth in the past tense even though it is still around. I for one have no trouble producing text in the correct pov without pretending to be from the future, and if you need to do that to produced text in the correct pov that's perfectly fine, but again, the roleplaying thing is only to figure out what tense and tone you need to write in, it has zero to do with what is acceptable for inclusion. Our mission is not to roleplay anything. Our mission is not to roleplay anything. Our mission is not to roleplay anything. And we're not beholden to the best practices of real archivists, because we write a different kind of product about a different universe than them. :So, now that we've hopefully concluded that MA guidelines are not superseded by stuff you found on some website, let's make this post even longer by briefly looking at Moses. The historicity of Moses is actually very uncertain, so those facts you inserted might be frowned upon even if they were placed contextless in a historian's text. However that's entirely besides the point. Because more importantly, the Star Trek universe is not supposed to be our future. It is the future of a world that is very similar but has some notable differences, like there being nuclear weapons platforms in orbit in the 60s and one Henry Starling being a major force in computers in the 90s. You can not be sure any real life stuff also happened in Star Trek, and that is one of the reasons it does not belong here. Simple as that, and not at all controversial, because the rules spell this out quite clearly. If you don't think what you read on some random website obviously supersedes the parameters set for this project just because it answers a question you didn't find the answer to here that is. :Oh and regarding the fucking "you" statements, again. I am terribly sorry but as long as the policy on personal attacks is not amended to include you statements, there is no use complaining about them. And in any case it appears to me that you are taking the concept to literal, you're often threatened by what is valid criticism (though I'll admit actual attacks or borderline attacks against you have also been made in the past), and interpret that criticism as a you attack or any other kind of attack to cope. This tendency derails discussions badly, by the way. -- Capricorn (talk) 16:35, April 1, 2015 (UTC) :::While I pretty much agree with everything Capricorn has stated above, I will say that the information you presented on archivists is not totally invalid on MA... but it needs to be tempered with the context of what our mission is. And I hesitate to say that to you, because I know Aspies: there's a tendency to take everything literally, without the ability to see shades of grey. Very little in life is black or white, though (and it's not only Aspies that have trouble seeing that). I'm afraid that's what you're dealing with here... the lack what some people might call "common sense", but that's not the case with someone with Asperger's. It's simply the inability to view things in a nuanced context. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:22, April 1, 2015 (UTC) ::I have attempted to read the rules and policies. The writing style is alien to me. I went to the other place, for it felt less alien. Talking about alien, another unfortuante aspect of being an Aspie is that, because of our condition, alienation is a common phenomena. I have successfully alienated myself from this community.Lakenheath72 (talk) 18:31, April 1, 2015 (UTC) :::I do understand that you feel alienated; like you said, that's a very common phenomenon with Aspies (although far from *only* Aspies). I *don't* think you've alienated yourself from this community, though. I don't see *anyone* telling you to go away, or to stop editing, or that you're not wanted here. Just the opposite... everyone is trying to help you understand what the rules actually mean, and in what context. I hate to think that we're driving someone away because they're different. I daresay that most (if not all) of us would be considered "odd" by a large selection of the mainstream population. Star Trek fans are often considered "nerds" or "geeks" (or worse) to begin with; anyone who spends much time editing a Star Trek wiki is, obviously, more so. ;) I'm a gamer, another nerdy pastime, and a musician (again rather geeky), and a hiker (oh, a tree-hugger)... I could go on and on. Please don't think that anyone is trying to alienate you... people wouldn't be spending this much time trying to explain things to you if they didn't care. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:26, April 1, 2015 (UTC) ::::Renegade54 is right. While it can be incredibly frustrating trying to communicate with you, since I tend to see too many shades of grey (and make of that what you will internet), it has yet to not be worth the effort. - 20:07, April 1, 2015 (UTC) :I'm really not suggesting you should stop editing either, your contributions are easily a net positive. I just wish it could be easier for you to acknowledge the possibility, if people repeatedly claim so, that you might still be wrong about something even if you don't see it yourself. I've seen you explain how something you did is the result of your problems interpreting stuff, and yet in the very same post keep arguing vigorously your position in a matter that as far as all others are concerned is settled. (and by the way, a lot of the stuff you argue (about analysis, context etc) isn't even wrong, but it simply doesn't belong here, in this project) :I and I think most users would be happy to help you by trying to explain any guideline or anything else you find hard to grasp because it feels alien, and have in fact been doing that on occasion. But you're going to have to meet people halfway, trying to work with them rather then against them. And explaining yourself if asked without presuming people are are out to get you, and opening your mind to the possibility that something which you've did you're absolutely 100% convinced is right might be wrong after all. -- Capricorn (talk) 20:56, April 1, 2015 (UTC)